§ 2.38 p.m.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take, in view of the House of Lords' decision in British Airways v. Taylor, to ensure that when changes are made in the structure of nationalised industries the new body remains liable for the offences of any nationalised board whose assets and liabilities the new body has taken over.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)None, my Lords. As long as the corporate body acquired retains a legal status it will remain liable to prosecution. I am advised that there is no case for transferring criminal liabilities when responsibilities are transferred in either the public or the private sector. This is because criminal liability is a personal matter and cannot be assigned in the same way as can a civil liability.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in a case such as this exactly the same persons will be operating the undertaking that has been taken over as were operating it before? May I ask him, therefore, whether there is not some means of securing in the future that this liability passes, because unless there is a conviction the person who suffers by the offence has no means of obtaining compensation for any consequences that may arise out of the offence?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, first of all, of course, it was perfectly open to the party in the particular case to which the noble Lord has referred to prosecute the correct party; that is, BOAC. BOAC was still a legal entity at the time the offence was committed and for some considerable period after that.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am aware that that was the case, but the fact remains that it may not always be so in future cases. The period in this case was, I believe, about six months. But it does seem wrong that the opportunity of obtaining—
§ Lord DRUMALBYNDoes it not seem wrong that the opportunity to get compensation in these criminal proceedings should be lost simply because the person who prosecuted, who in this case was the Trading Standards Authority, did not prosecute in time?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the exchanges between the noble Lord and his own Front Bench. My own advice is that it would not be normal practice, and indeed is never the case, that criminal liability passes from one corporate body to another when the first corporate body no longer exists. This is the case in the public and private sectors, and always has been the case. I am not aware of any instance where a public corporation has taken on criminal liabilities of the body it is taking over. At the same time I should make the point that any serious criminal offence will involve personal liability as well as the liability of the company, and it will be open to the aggrieved party to seek to see that the individuals responsible for the criminal offence are prosecuted.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, if it is necessary to prosecute the corporation before it is dissolved, can the noble Lord say what notice of dissolution is given in these cases?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, in this particular case the dissolution Order was laid before Parliament in December 1973 and came into force on 1st April 1974.